Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00685/C Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00685/C Applicant : Mr Roy & Mrs Susan Tilleard Proposal : Additional use of the building as an educational / visitor centre with function space with catering within the existing facilities Site Address : Lorne House Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AZ
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 03.08.2017 Site Visit : 03.08.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.01.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the proposed use coming into operation, signage in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Department, shall be erected at the entrance to the property giving priority to vehicles entering the property in accordance with a drawing to be approved by the Department. The signage shall be maintained thereafter.
Reason: To prevent vehicles waiting on the highway to enter the property in the interest of highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the proposed use coming into operation a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department and implemented in accordance with these details.
Reason: to ensure the needs of pedestrians and alternative travel options are prioritised and promoted by the applicant in the interest of highway safety.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings 01, 100B, and 50 all received on 26th June, 2017 and the Transport Assessment dated 14th November, 2017. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00685/C Page 2 of 10
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of Lorne House Lodge The Trustees of the Estate of 2 and 5, Bridge Street and the owner of The Malt House
all of whose properties abut the site.
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of 46, The Promenade and Ballajofay, Port St. Mary which are not sufficiently close to be considered to be directly affected by the proposal.
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies between Bridge Street and School Lane, a partly pedestrianised access which runs from Douglas Street through past Smetana Close to Victoria Road. The site has a hard surfaced lane running through its middle with open fields to the north, a kitchen garden to the south and at the south western half, the formal grounds of Lorne House, an historically important building which faces south west towards Bridge Street.
1.2 The grounds to the south west of Lorne House are landscaped with lawns, trees and shrubs. To the north west is a tennis court and a wall which separates the formal grounds from the open fields to the rear.
1.3 Lorne House has three floors of accommodation which accommodate two units of accommodation - the formal house at the front and a separate unit at the rear over two storeys, which is accessible from within the main house only from one internal door leading from a kitchen of one to a utility room of the other.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the building from residential to a mix of possible uses - functions, exhibitions, cinema, education and training with associated kitchen and two private offices.
2.2 No changes to the building are proposed. No Registered Building consent is required as these regulations do not include management or control over a change of use.
2.3 The applicant has submitted a transport assessment prepared by Sa Sanderson Associates and dated 14th November, 2017. This refers to a number of Strategic Plan policies (Transport Policies 1-8) and the Area Plan for the South (2013), paragraphs 6.27.1 and 6.28.3 both of which identify Castletown specifically and the south more generally as having an importance for tourism. It also refers to the newly published highway guidance - Manual for Manx Roads adopted by Department of Infrastructure. The report describes access to the site being from
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00685/C Page 3 of 10
School Lane, 23m north of the junction of School Lane with Douglas Street. It refers to access to third party property being taken partly from the access drive. They describe the existing stone arch, built in 1902 which generally results in approaching drivers giving way to those passing in the other direction although two vehicles can pass each other. The height of the arch results in modern delivery vehicles and coaches could not gain entry. It also refers to a pedestrian access from Bridge Street - approximately 100m walk.
2.4 The local road network is described as generally lightly trafficked although there are peaks of vehicle numbers which quickly dissipate, associated with the primary school nearby.
2.5 It explains that due to limited internal catering facilities, when events are held at the premises, catering will be supplied by outside caterers by van with some more exclusive events (10-12 people) served inside. They refer to a charity event held in November this year which accommodated 100 guests and 20 staff and where access and parking were not considered to be problematic. Signage is provided for such events to guide visitors to the premises and hopefully in time, existing heritage boards will include directions to the site.
2.6 It describes the site as being sustainable, given its proximity to the town, its population, bus and steam railway links with Colby, Ballabeg, Ballasalla and Castletown being within a 5km distance which is considered suitable for cycling, and with Port St. Mary only one km further away. Cycle stands will be provided.
2.7 The site is not considered to be a destination in its own right and would rely upon the catchment of Castletown and the attractions it contains and most of the visitors would already be in the town. Those arriving by coach would be dropped off at existing coach parking areas and could easily walk to Lorne House. The applicant seeks to ensure that the opening times will not coincide with the arrival and departure times of parents to the school - proposed hours of operation will be 0930hrs - 1700hrs. Staff numbers are expected to be around 5 - a mix of full and part time workers. Corporate events during the evening are described as occasional with low numbers of attendees and Bank Holiday or weekend charitable events already take place at the site so there will be no change. They note that when being lawfully used as an office 5 years ago, this resulted in 30 staff and daily visitors including arriving and departing at peak times. They suggest, if required, a management plan covering the organised arrival and departure of visitors and servicing arrangements, could be provided in response to a planning condition.
2.8 The report concludes that there are no highway reasons why the planning application should not be approved.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within a Conservation Area where there is a requirement to ensure that development preserves or enhances the character of the area (Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01).
3.2 The property lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Private Woodland or Parkland.
3.3 Lorne House is identified in the Area Plan as a building worthy of consideration for Registration and the building has subsequently been registered (* see below for summary of the Registration process).
3.4 The Strategic Plan contains two policies which are directly applicable to this proposal:
Environment Policy 33: The change of use of Registered Buildings will only be permitted if the proposed use is appropriate and any alterations associated with the change are not detrimental to its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00685/C Page 4 of 10
3.5 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 provides the following advice:
POLICY RB/4 USE In considering a proposal for change of use of a registered building, the principal aim should be to identify the optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the building, all of which affect its special character as a building of merit. An applicant will have to illustrate that the effect of any proposed changes upon the architectural and historic interest of the building will be minimised.
3.27 The Policy goes on to provide advice about demolishing RBs, suggesting that alternative uses should always be considered:
"The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.
o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces, that in an age of rapid change, may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition."
3.28 Environment Policy 35 echoes the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in stating: "Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Castletown Commissioners fully support the application, considering that the building is a significant one within the history of the town and the proposal to bring it into the public realm should be applauded (02.08.17 and 06.12.17).
4.2 Highway Services of Department of Infrastructure comment as follows:
05.01.2018 - Following receipt of additional information in the form of a transport statement Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the proposed use coming into operation signing shall be erected at the entrance to the property giving priority to vehicles entering the property in accordance with a drawing to be approved by the Department. The signing shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To prevent vehicles waiting on the highway to enter the property in the interest of highway safety.
Prior to the proposed use coming into operation a travel plan shall be prepared, implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Department.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00685/C Page 5 of 10
Reason: To ensure the needs of pedestrians and alternative travel options are prioritised and promoted by the applicant in the interest of highway safety.
4.3 The owner of Sunny Cot, 46, The Promenade object to the application, commenting that they have attended various functions at Lorne House and have danced in the grounds and finds it unacceptable that changes should be proposed to the building (14.07.17).
4.4 The representative of the Trustees of the owners of 2 and 5, Bridge Street submits two representations (14.07.17 and 11.07.17) both of which express the view that the application should not be determined until the outcome of the de-Registration is known.
4.5 The owner of The Malt House, Bridge Street objects to the application and advises that the site notice was not publicly visible. They continue to suggest that a publicly accessible building will have the potential to adversely affect the security of their property and their living conditions through increased noise. They suggest that the owners of 1-4, Bridge Street have access to the tennis court and that the applicant at some time in the past installed a rail around the flat roof on the first floor above the extension and they have concerns over the safety of this as well as its unlawfulness (10.07.17).
4.6 The owner of Lorne House Lodge objects to the application on the basis that the proposal appears to be intended for business purposes, notes that there is no proper business case included within the application nor any explanation of how the building and grounds will be secure if they are to be opened up to the public. He is concerned about the impact of functions on those abutting the site, which are mainly residential properties and comment that there are other facilities for visitors, such as the plans for the former police station opposite the Castle as well as the Old School House. He is of the view that that property should remain in residential use, as it is currently being marketed (27.07.17).
4.7 The owner of Ballajofay, Castletown Road, Port St. Mary advises that he and his fiancee wish to hold their wedding reception here, having searched the Island for a suitable venue but cannot proceed until this application is approved. They believe that the Island is crying out for this sort of venue and other than the Bradda Glen Cafe there are no venues in the south of the Island. They believe the proposal would bring life back to the former capital and be the pride of the town. They are in complete support of the application and hope it can be approved as quickly as possible. They add that if parking is an issue, there is a pedestrian door from which guests parked on the harbour side, can enter the site (23.10.17).
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications in the past, including one for the erection of two dwellings and the introduction of a vehicular access in the wall alongside Bridge Street (both refused) and the change of use of the building from residential and offices to purely residential (10/01042/C) which followed from an earlier application, 91/00626/C for the change of use from domestic accommodation to office and domestic.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed change of use would have any adverse impact on the character and importance of the building itself along with its setting, taking into account the acknowledged importance of the building and its Registered status. It is also relevant to consider whether the site can accommodate the respective change in traffic and parking levels and whether the proposed use would have any adverse impact on those in neighbouring property.
6.2 Whilst the Transport Assessment concludes that the site is not of a size to be a destination in its own right, this does not really include the education, training, cinema or functions, all of which are likely to attract people who come only to the site and who do not visit Castletown more generally, or certainly whose primary reason for visiting the town is to come to Lorne House. However, the site can accommodate at least 20 spaces and as the arch prevents
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00685/C Page 6 of 10
coaches from entering all of the site, it is highly likely that those coming by coach will be dropped nearby and will walk to the site. It is certainly the case that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed use, would, in total be less than that if the building remained as an office which is a previous lawful use. It is also the case that if there is insufficient parking space within the site - and it is not accepted that this is the case - those visiting the site for a limited time are more likely to park outside of the site than someone coming to the site on a regular and frequent basis. This will result in less impact on those living near to the site.
6.2 Whilst the width of the access off the public highway would restrict two vehicles coming in and out at the same time, resulting in vehicles waiting on the outer side, due to the nature of the use, it is considered that generally, vehicles coming into the site are likely to be entering and leaving at the same time, resulting in a minimal number of vehicles at any one time, waiting to come in whilst other vehicles are leaving.
6.3 In addition to the above, it is important where buildings are identified as of architectural or historical importance, that uses may be found for them that generate income to support their future maintenance. Indeed, Registered Building Consent is not required for any change of use of a Registered Building as this does not fall within the category of developments controlled under these regulations.
6.4 The policies all require that changes of use do not or would not result in adverse changes to the character or appearance of the building of interest and in this respect, the proposal can utilise the building in its current form without the need for any changes. Many modern uses can bring with them the need for changes in a building to accommodate modern technology, heating, ventilation, fire precautions, some or all of which can result in significant damage to the internal fabric of the building. This is not the case here where the use relies to a great extent on the preservation of the features of interest and the character of the building. Otherwise there would be little reason to visit the property.
6.5 The fact that one of the objectors recalls visiting the site to dance, reflects the fact that one of its former uses was to accommodate visitors for various functions, supporting the proposed use.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application is supported.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00685/C Page 7 of 10
supported by the Georgian Group who wrote at the same time to DOLGE and requested that Lorne House be entered onto the Register.
In line with Policy - RB/2 Identification of Buildings for Registration (refer to Paragraph above) and pending registration, DOLGE issued a Building Preservation Notice in respect of Lorne House in February 2008. At that time, the property owner, Mr Roy Tilleard, indicated his acceptance of the proposed Registration.
The Building Preservation Notice however expired in late June 2008 by which time the registration of the building had not been completed. Instead, and following agreement by DOLGE, the Department's Conservation Officer worked closely with the property owner to ensure any new proposed works to the property did not impact upon the historic integrity of the building.
In 2012, the Department of Infrastructure's Member for Planning, Mr Quayle MHK, agreed that work to place Lorne House onto the Protected Buildings Register be re-commenced. As a result a notice of proposal to register Lorne House was published on 26th March 2012 and was subject to a period of 21 days public consultation.
During the consultation period, the property owners confirmed that,
"... there is no considered objection to the principle of registration of Lorne House..."
However, registration was not progressed as officers instead became engaged in pre- application discussions with the property owner and his agents in respect of a number of alternative development proposals within the grounds of Lorne House as agreed by the then Director of Planning & Building Control.
The discussions did not materialise into any formal planning applications being submitted the effect of which was that, once again, the property's registration was not confirmed.
In 2015 the Department became aware that Lorne House was also being actively marketed for sale both by Quayle's online Estate Agency and on the Zoopla property website.
In light of the above, it was becoming clear that there was an increasing risk to the historic integrity of Lorne House and its surroundings if registration of the building was not undertaken.
As such, and as Lorne House was within the then Minister's constituency, Mr Cretney MLC in accordance with the provisions of section 3(2) of the Government Departments Act 1989 (Refer to Appendix 1) consequently approved that Officers re-commence the process of registration.
A Notice of Proposal to Register Lorne House was subsequently placed in The Courier newspaper on the 4th September 2015 and public notices were also displayed on site. The Notice provided for a 21 day consultation period and importantly highlighted that an amended 'Registration' boundary was being proposed as compared to that proposed by the 2012 Registration Application.
The Department received one response from Manx National Heritage in support of the registration application during the consultation period. However, the property owner objected to the registration. In a response dated 21st September 2015, the property owners' agents stated:
"The owner is content that the building itself and the immediate garden are incorporated on the list and has carried out significant refurbishment works with approval to ensure that the fabric of the building is maintained in good order.
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00685/C Page 8 of 10
There is a significant concern that the registration proposes to include the kitchen garden and field adjacent to the property. Historically, the owner has employed CfMS and through them Durham University to carry out both non-invasive and invasive archaeological exploration digs to establish the interest on the field. The results of these have been published and issued to Manx National Heritage who has confirmed that they have no interest in the property. Accordingly the registration of the fields and the kitchen garden are STRONGLY objected to by the owner. He recognises the importance of Lorne House in its walled garden environment and welcomes the proposals in this respect."
Having weighed and balanced both the consultation responses received and the supporting information for registering Lorne House, on 17th November 2015, the Department agreed to enter Lorne House onto the Protected Buildings Register.
On 4th December 2015, the Department received an application to remove (i.e. De- Register) Lorne House from the Register. In making the application, and while accepting that the building and the entrance gate/wall and turret should be entered onto the Register, the property owner:
(i) objects to the inclusion of the wider gardens within any registration of the building; and (ii) objects to the inclusion of the field and kitchen gardens which, in the owner's opinion, are separate and distinct from the building.
The Department subsequently placed a Notice of Proposal to De-Register Lorne House in The Courier newspaper on 8th December 2016 and public notices were also displayed on site with the notice providing a 21 day consultation period for the receipt of comments etc.
The Department received 18 consultation responses all of which objected to the proposal to de-register the building. In summary, the following points were made as principal grounds for objecting to its removal:
(i) The gardens are an intrinsic part of the historic setting/integrity of the building; (ii) The sub-division of the property into three areas may lead to development within the field/kitchen garden areas which would impact upon the historic setting/integrity of the building; and (iii) The de-registration of Lorne House without its immediate re-registration leaves the building vulnerable to inappropriate development.
On 5th February 2016, the Department received correspondence from the property owner's advocates stating that following further consideration of the Department's registration of the building on 17th November 2015, it was of the opinion that the Department had acted wholly outside of its statutory powers in registering both the building and its grounds and that this represented an ultra-vires act by the Department. As such, the advocates invited the Department to simply withdraw its Registration rather than continue to progress the current application for de-registration of the building.
There is no mechanism within the Act to simply withdraw the Registration, the only means of removing a building from the Register is to de-register the building following the processes set out in the legislation. In considering the comments made by the owner's advocates officers re-examined the precise wording of the Act which states 'any feature of the building consisting of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building' and have concluded that it is appropriate to re- examine the extent of the registration.
The reporting officer (the Conservation Officer) recommended that the building, garden and adjacent field be de-registered and simultaneously a Building Preservation Notice be issued for Lorne House dwelling and the entrance archway. Such a Notice, which will be in place for a
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00685/C Page 9 of 10
maximum period of four months, protects the building from alteration or demolition as if it were included on the Protected Buildings Register. During that time the process of re- Registration would begin. He clarified that it is important to state that at all times until any new registration is confirmed, the building and the pertinent aspects of the site will be protected in law from demolition or alteration. Furthermore, protection to the grounds of the property will be afforded by its inclusion within the Castletown Conservation Area (designated in 1990) and as such, any future planning applications at all times will be considered on the basis of the impact of the proposals on the setting of a Registered Building and the character of the Conservation Area and the corresponding policy test of 'preserving and/or enhancing' the Conservation Area.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 15.01.2018
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00685/C Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 15.01.2018
Application No. :
17/00685/C Applicant : Mr Roy & Mrs Susan Tilleard Proposal : Additional use of the building as an educational / visitor centre with function space with catering within the existing facilities Site Address : Lorne House Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AZ
Presenting Officer : Mr C Balmer
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
PLANNING COMMITTEE 15/01/2018
After discussion the Planning Committee agreed with the recommendation subject to amendment of Condition 3:
Conditions of Approval
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the proposed use coming into operation, signage in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Department, shall be erected at the entrance to the property giving priority to vehicles entering the property in accordance with a drawing to be approved by the Department. The signage shall be maintained thereafter.
Reason: To prevent vehicles waiting on the highway to enter the property in the interest of highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the proposed use coming into operation a travel plan (including but not limited to coaches/buses entering the site) shall be submitted to and approved by the Department and implemented in accordance with these details.
Reason: To ensure the needs of pedestrians and alternative travel options are prioritised and promoted by the applicant in the interest of highway safety.
Plans/Drawings/Information This decision relates to drawings 01, 100B, and 50 all received on 26th June, 2017 and the Transport Assessment dated 14th November, 2017.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal